Comparative Workplace Employment

Relations: An Analysis of Practice in

Britain and France 1st Edition Thomas
Amossé
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/comparative-workplace-employment-relations-an-anal
ysis-of-practice-in-britain-and-france-1st-edition-thomas-amosse/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Arguing about empire imperial rhetoric in Britain and

France, 1882-1956 1st Edition Thomas

https://textbookfull.com/product/arguing-about-empire-imperial-
rhetoric-in-britain-and-france-1882-1956-1st-edition-thomas/

Performance Appraisal in Modern Employment Relations:

An Interdisciplinary Approach Tindara Addabbo

https://textbookfull.com/product/performance-appraisal-in-modern-
employment-relations-an-interdisciplinary-approach-tindara-
addabbo/

Accountability Policies in Education: A Comparative and

Multilevel Analysis in France and Quebec Christian
Maroy

https://textbookfull.com/product/accountability-policies-in-
education-a-comparative-and-multilevel-analysis-in-france-and-
quebec-christian-maroy/

Gender, Class and Power: An Analysis of Pay

Inequalities in the Workplace Tricia Dawson

https://textbookfull.com/product/gender-class-and-power-an-
analysis-of-pay-inequalities-in-the-workplace-tricia-dawson/
Cryogenic Safety A Guide to Best Practice in the Lab
and Workplace Thomas J. Peterson

https://textbookfull.com/product/cryogenic-safety-a-guide-to-
best-practice-in-the-lab-and-workplace-thomas-j-peterson/

Strategic Human Resource Management and Employment

Relations Ashish Malik

https://textbookfull.com/product/strategic-human-resource-
management-and-employment-relations-ashish-malik/

International Sale of Goods A Private International Law

Comparative and Prospective Analysis of Sino European
Relations 1st Edition Nicolas Nord

https://textbookfull.com/product/international-sale-of-goods-a-
private-international-law-comparative-and-prospective-analysis-
of-sino-european-relations-1st-edition-nicolas-nord/

Employment Relations in Outsourced Public Services:

Working Between Market and State Anna Mori

https://textbookfull.com/product/employment-relations-in-
outsourced-public-services-working-between-market-and-state-anna-
mori/

Developing Positive Employment Relations: International

Experiences of Labour Management Partnership 1st
Edition Stewart Johnstone

https://textbookfull.com/product/developing-positive-employment-
relations-international-experiences-of-labour-management-
partnership-1st-edition-stewart-johnstone/
 EDITED BY
THOMAS AMOSSÉ
ALEX BRYSON
JOHN FORTH
HÉLOÏSE PETIT

COMPARATIVE WORKPLACE
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS

An Analysis of Practice in
Britain and France
Comparative Workplace Employment Relations
Thomas Amossé • Alex Bryson • John Forth • Héloïse Petit
Editors

Comparative
Workplace
Employment
Relations
An Analysis of Practice in Britain and France
Editors
Thomas Amossé Alex Bryson
Centre d’Etudes de l’Emploi UCL Institute of Education
Noisy-le-Grand, Cédex, France London, United Kingdom

John Forth Héloïse Petit

National Institute of Economic and CLERSE, Université Lille 1
Social Research Lille, France
London, United Kingdom

ISBN 978-1-137-57418-3 ISBN 978-1-137-57419-0 (eBook)

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-57419-0

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016942805

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

The author(s) has/have asserted their right(s) to be identified as the author(s) of this work in accordance
with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and trans-
mission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Macmillan Publishers Ltd. London
 Acknowledgements

There are many individuals and institutions who have contributed—

either knowingly or otherwise—to the writing of this volume. The book
could not have been written if it were not for their hard work, encourage-
ment, and inspiration.
First and foremost, we must acknowledge the considerable efforts
of those who have overseen, designed, and managed the Workplace
Employment Relations Survey (WERS) and Relations Professionnelles et
Négociations d’Entreprise (REPONSE) surveys through their long his-
tory. In particular, we acknowledge the work of those directly involved
in the 2004/2005 and 2011 surveys on which our analysis is primarily
based. Looking further back in the series, we also gratefully acknowl-
edge the original work of Neil Millward and Thomas Coutrot who were,
in many respects, the fathers of the two surveys on either side of the
Channel, and who began the history of close collaboration between the
two survey teams. We also extend our thanks to each one of the managers
and employees who gave their time to participate in the surveys; with-
out their public-spirited contributions, this book simply would not have
been possible.
Our thanks also go to the UK’s Department of Trade and Industry—
now the Department of Business Innovation and Skills—and France’s
Direction de l’Animation de la Recherche, des Etudes et des Statistiques
(DARES) which sowed the seeds for our collaboration by funding
v
vi Acknowledgements

a conference in Paris in September 2008 to discuss findings from the

two surveys. This conference is where many of us first met and began to
exchange ideas about a more comprehensive comparative analysis than
had previously been attempted.
Funding for our comparative analysis was kindly provided by the
Leverhulme Trust in the form of a Research Project Grant (Ref. RPG-
2013-399). The Trust’s research grant provided funds to support the
contributions of John Forth, Alex Bryson, and Zinaida Salibekyan to
the project, as well as funding numerous meetings between the various
participants in the project. The grant also funded the translation of the
survey questionnaires, and we gratefully acknowledge the careful work
of our translators: Pamela Millward and Lorraine Campbell, who trans-
lated the REPONSE questionnaires into English; and Catherine Bloch-
London and Nicolas Ugarte, who translated the WERS questionnaires
into French.
The National Institute of Economic and Social Research in London
and the Centre d’Etudes de l’Emploi in Paris provided an institutional
base for the British and French teams on the project. The individual con-
tributions of Thomas, Amossé, Héloïse Petit, Christine Erhel, Antoine
Rebérioux, and Philippe Askenazy were each made possible by their
respective institutions. The team as a whole is extremely grateful for this
invaluable, broad base of institutional support.
Finally, we gratefully acknowledge the contributions made by a small
Advisory Group to the project, comprising Professor Duncan Gallie,
David Yeandle OBE, Thomas Coutrot, and Professor Jérôme Gautié.
Each member provided invaluable comments on our work at various
stages of the project, as well as hearty encouragement, for which we are
very thankful.
Any errors and omissions remain our own.
Thomas Amossé
Alex Bryson
John Forth
Héloïse Petit
 Contents

1 Managing and Working in Britain and France:

An Introduction 1
Thomas Amossé, Alex Bryson, John Forth, and Héloïse Petit
Introduction 1
Our Contribution 4
Comparing Workplace Employment Relations 5
A Brief Portrait of Two Economies 8
Using Workplace Surveys for Comparative Research 14
The Survey Populations 18
The Outline of the Book 20
Reporting Conventions 22
References 23

2 Workplace Structure and Governance: How Do Employers

Differ Between Britain and France? 27
John Forth and Antoine Rebérioux
Introduction 27
The Demographic Characteristics of Business Units 30
Workplace Size and Firm Structure 31
Nature of the Market 36
Age of Workplace 38

vii
viii Contents

The Management of Human Resources at the Workplace 40

Who Is Responsible for HR? 40
The Autonomy of Branch Sites over HR Issues 41
The Position of the Workplace Within Broader Networks 44
Ownership and Governance 46
Stock Market Listing 46
Family and Foreign Ownership 51
Ownership and Remuneration 53
Summary and Conclusions 56
References 57

3 Employee Expression and Representation at Work:

Voice or Exit? 61
Thomas Amossé and John Forth
Introduction 61
Arrangements for Employee Representation and Voice 65
Institutional Context 65
Union Representation 68
Non-union Representation 72
Arrangements for Direct Communication and
Consultation 74
Mapping Voice Regimes Across Workplaces 75
The Correlates of Different Voice Arrangements 76
An Overview of Voice Arrangements: Complementarity
or Substitution? 82
What Do Voice Regimes Do in the Two Countries? 85
Aspects of the Social Functioning of the Workplace 88
Wages, Labour Productivity, and Financial
Performance 91
The Attitudes of Managers and Employees at the
Workplace 94
Conclusion 98
References 99
 Contents ix

4 Tenure, Skill Development, and Pay: The Role of

Internal Labour Markets 105
John Forth, Héloïse Petit, and Zinaida Salibekyan
Introduction 105
Recruitment and Tenure 107
Wages 113
A Composite Indicator of ILM Orientation 116
Profiling ILM Workplaces and Workers 120
Which Workplaces Have an ILM Orientation? 120
Which Employees Are Located in Workplaces
with ILMs? 122
Skill Development and Training 123
Different Institutional Settings 124
Off-the-Job Training and ILMs 127
Other Motivations for Off-the-Job Training 128
Contracts 130
Patterns of Use in 2011 132
Which Workplaces Use Non-permanent Labour? 134
Conclusion 136
References 137

5 Work Organisation and Human Resource Management:

Does Context Matter? 141
Philippe Askenazy and John Forth
Introduction 141
HRM Practices and Work Organisation in France and Britain 145
Work Organisation and Technology 146
Incentives and Performance Evaluation 148
Target Setting 152
Bundles of Practices Rather than Trade-offs 153
How Do the Patterns Compare Between Britain and France? 157
London and Paris Look Similar but Britain Faces an
Acute Spatial Divide 157
HRM Across Industries 159
Workplace Characteristics: Universal or Contingent
Effects? 164
x Contents

HRM and Workplace Performance 169

Conclusions 172
References 174

6 Job Quality 179

Alex Bryson, Christine Erhel, and Zinaida Salibekyan
Introduction 179
Non-pecuniary Job Quality 183
Indicators of Job Quality 183
A Comparative Analysis of Job Quality in 2011 186
Job Satisfaction 194
Indicators of Job Satisfaction 195
A Comparative Analysis of Job Satisfaction in 2011 197
Job Satisfaction and Job Quality: Testing the
Karasek Model 204
Conclusion 205
References 206

7 How Did Workplaces Respond to Recession? 211

Thomas Amossé, Alex Bryson, and Héloïse Petit
Introduction 211
Which Workplaces Were Hit by the Crisis and Just How
Bad Was It? 215
What Happened to Pay During the Crisis? 219
What Happened to Employment During the Crisis? 222
Employment Turnover in Larger Workplaces 225
Hours Worked by Employees 228
The Use of Non-permanent Staff 230
Employees’ Experience of Recession 232
Conclusion 236
References 237
 Contents xi

8 Vive La Difference? Managing and Working in Britain

and France 241
Thomas Amossé, Alex Bryson, John Forth, and Héloïse Petit
Introduction 241
A Comparative View: Same or Different? 243
Workplace Performance and Employees’ Experiences 247
What Role Does the Workplace Play in Employment
Relations? Does It Really Matter? 249
References 253

Technical Appendix 255

Thomas Amossé, John Forth, and Zinaida Salibekyan
Introduction 255
Origins and Aims 255
Units and Coverage 256
Survey Methods 258
Producing Comparable Data for Analysis 260
The Coverage and Representativeness of the Survey Samples 266
Creating an Accessible Research Infrastructure 273
Further Information on WERS and REPONSE 274
References 275

Author Index 277

Subject Index 285

 Notes on the Contributors

Thomas Amossé is a public statistician and researcher in sociology at

the Centre d’Etudes de l’Emploi. His field of research covers work and
employment (including industrial relations, working conditions, occupa-
tion health and safety, and labour mobility), social classes’ analysis, and
the history of quantification.
Philippe Askenazy is a senior researcher at the Centre National de la
Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Paris School of Economics and Professor
of Economics at the Ecole Normale Supérieure. His main research inter-
ests focus on growth, labour, and firm performance. Previous research
includes theoretical and empirical studies on organizational and technical
change, occupational health and safety, R&D, and innovation.
Alex Bryson is Professor of Quantitative Social Science at UCL’s
Institute of Education. During the writing of this book, Bryson was the
head of the Employment Group at the National Institute of Economic
and Social Research in London, where he remains a visiting fellow.
Christine Erhel is an associate professor at University Paris 1, and holds
research positions at the Centre d’Economie de la Sorbonne and the
Centre d’Etudes de l’Emploi. During the writing of this book she was
heading the Public Policy and Employment research unit of the Centre
d’Etudes de l’Emploi.

xiii
xiv Notes on the Contributors

John Forth is a principal research fellow and a member of the

Employment Group at the National Institute of Economic and Social
Research in London. His research is focused on the quality of employ-
ment relations, pay and rewards, and economic performance.
Héloïse Petit is Professor of Economics at the University Lille 1, and a
research fellow at Centre Lillois d’Etudes et de Recherches Sociologiques
et Economiques (CLERSE) and CEE (Centre d’Etudes de l’Emploi).
During the writing of this book she was at the Centre d’Economie de la
Sorbonne (University Paris 1). Her research interests focus on human
resource management practices, labour, and job flows.
Antoine Rebérioux is Professor of Economics at the University Paris
7-Diderot, and a research fellow at Laboratoire Dynamiques Sociales et
Recomposition des Espaces (LADYSS) (University Paris 7) and Centre de
Recherche en Economie Droit et Développement Insulaire/ Laboratoire
d’Economie Appliquée au Développement (CREDDI/LEAD) (University
of Antilles). His research focuses on corporate governance and its rela-
tionship with human resource management.
Zinaida Salibekyan is a post-doctoral fellow in the ‘Dynamics of
Organisations and Work’ research unit at the Centre d’Etudes de l’Emploi
(CEE) in Paris and a Research Fellow at the Institute of Labour Economics
and Industrial Sociology (LEST) in Marseille.
 Abbreviations

ANDRH Association Nationale des Directeurs des Resources Humaines

APM Association pour le Progrès du Management
AT Austria
BE Belgium
BHPS British Household Panel Survey
BVR Bloom and Van Reenen
CBI Confederation of British Industry
CE Comité d’entreprise
CFDT Confédération Française Démocratique du Travail
CFE-CGC Confédération Française de l’Encadrement–Confédération
Générale des Cadres
CFTC Confédération Française des Travailleurs Chrétiens
CGPME Confédération Générale de Petites et Moyennes Entreprises
CGT Confédération Générale du Travail
CIPD Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development
CJD Centre des Jeunes Dirigeants d’entreprise
DADS Déclaration Annuelle de Données Sociales
DARES Direction de l’Animation de la Recherche, des Etudes et des
Statistiques
DE Germany
DK Denmark
DMMO Déclaration des Mouvements de Main d’Œuvre
DP Délégué du personnel

xv
xvi Abbreviations

DS Délégué syndical
DUP Délégation unique du personnel
ECHP European Community Household Panel Survey
ECS European Company Survey
EIS European Innovation Survey
EPL Employment protection legislation
ERP Enterprise resource planning
ES Spain
ESS European Social Survey
EU European Union
EU-LFS European Union Labour Force Survey
EWCS European Working Conditions Survey
FDI Foreign direct investment
FEs Fixed effects
FI Finland
FO Force Ouvrière
FR France
FTCs Fixed term contracts
GDP Gross domestic product
HR Human resources
HRM Human resource management
ICT Information and communication technology
ILM Internal labour market
ILO International Labour Organisation
ISCED International Standard Classification of Education
ISCO International Standard Classification of Occupations
ISSP International Social Survey Programme
IT Italy
JCC Joint consultative committee
JIT Just-in-time
JSG Job security guarantee
LFS Labour Force Survey
MEDEF Mouvement des Entreprises de France
NACE Nomenclature Générale des Activités Économiques dans les
Communautés Européennes
NL Netherlands
NMW National Minimum Wage
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
 Abbreviations xvii

OLM Occupational labour market

OLS Ordinary least squares
PCS Professions et Catégories Socioprofessionnelles
PRP Performance-related pay
REPONSE Relations Professionnelles et Négociations d’Entreprise
RSS Représentant de section syndicale
SE Sweden
SIRENE Système National d’Identification et du Répertoire des
Entreprises et de leurs Établissements
SMIC Salaire Minimum Interprofessionnel de Croissance
SOC Standard Occupational Classification
UK United Kingdom
UNAPL Union Nationale des Professions Libérales
UNEDIC Union Nationale Interprofessionnelle pour l’Emploi Dans
l’Industrie et le Commerce
UPA Union Professionnelle Artisanale
US United States
WERS Workplace Employment Relations Survey
 List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 GDP per hour worked and employment rate in selected EU
countries plus the USA, 2011 10
Fig. 5.1 Distribution of management practices in 2011, by country 156
Fig. 6.1 Nine dimensions of job satisfaction in Britain in 2011 195
Fig. 6.2 Five dimensions of job satisfaction in France in 2011 196
Fig. 7.1 Employment change in Britain, 2004–2011 223
Fig. 7.2 Employment change in France, 2005–2011 224

xix
 List of Tables

Table 1.1 Economic performance in France and the UK, 2011 9

Table 1.2 Profile of the WERS–REPONSE workplace population by
workplace size and industry sector, 2011 19
Table 1.3 Profile of WERS–REPONSE employee population by
educational attainment, hours worked, and occupation, 2011 21
Table 2.1 Distribution of workplaces and employment by workplace
size (number of employees) in 2011, by country 32
Table 2.2 Establishments’ use of subcontracting in 2011, by country 33
Table 2.3 Parent company’s market share in 2011, by country 37
Table 2.4 Relationship between listed status and target setting in 2011,
by country 49
Table 2.5 Family and foreign ownership in 2004/2005 and 2011,
by country 51
Table 2.6 Employee remuneration and ownership in 2011, by country 55
Table 3.1 Union membership and representation in 2011, by country 69
Table 3.2 Non-union representation and arrangements for direct voice
in 2011, by country 73
Table 3.3 Prevalence of arrangements for employee voice by workplace
size, industry sector, and workplace age, 2011, by country 78
Table 3.4 The co-presence of union representatives, non-union
representatives, and arrangements for direct voice at the
workplace in 2011, by country 83

xxi
xxii List of Tables

Table 3.5 Associations between on-site union representation, direct

voice, and workplace outcomes in 2011, by country 89
Table 3.6 Attitudes towards union and direct voice in 2011, by country 96
Table 4.1 Workplace recruitment practices in France, the UK and the
EU-28, 2013 109
Table 4.2 Years of tenure at the workplace in 2011, by country 109
Table 4.3 The distribution of workplace FEs on job tenure in 2011,
by country 112
Table 4.4 Log of hourly wages (euros) in 2011, by country 114
Table 4.5 The distribution of workplace FEs on wages in 2011,
by country 115
Table 4.6 Percentage of workplaces with a ‘strong’ ILM orientation,
and corresponding share of employees in those workplaces,
in 2011, by country 117
Table 4.7 Distribution of job tenure and wages in 2004/2005 and
2011, by country 118
Table 4.8 Percentage of workplaces with a ‘strong’ ILM orientation,
and corresponding share of employees in those workplaces,
in 2004/2005 and 2011, by country 119
Table 4.9 Percentage of employees receiving off-the-job training in
2011, by age and tenure, by country 126
Table 4.10 Establishments’ use of temporary contracts and agency
workers in 2011, by country 132
Table 5.1 Prevalence of work organisation practices and ICT in 2011,
by country 147
Table 5.2 Prevalence of performance-related pay, share ownership
schemes, and performance appraisal in 2011, by country 150
Table 5.3 Use of performance targets in 2011, by country 153
Table 5.4 Scales showing intensity of practices across three domains
in 2011, by country 154
Table 5.5 Average scale scores in London and Paris, and other
regions within Britain and France, 2011 158
Table 5.6 Average scale scores by industry sector in 2011, by country 160
Table 5.7 Associations between HRM scales and workplace
characteristics in multivariate regression analysis for 2011,
by country 166
Table 5.8 Regressions of workplace financial performance, workplace
labour productivity, and employee wages on HRM scores
in 2011, by country 171
 List of Tables xxiii

Table 6.1 Job quality in 2011, Britain 183

Table 6.2 Job quality in 2011, France 185
Table 6.3 Job quality models in 2011 by country 189
Table 6.4 Job satisfaction regression results for Britain in 2011 198
Table 6.5 Job satisfaction regression results for France in 2011 200
Table 6.6 Karasek model (job demands and job controls) in 2011,
by country 205
Table 7.1 Product market conditions before and after the recession
in 2004/2005 and 2011, by country 216
Table 7.2 Pay freezes and cuts declared in 2011 in response to the
recession, by country 220
Table 7.3 Outflows by type and stayers’ rates for the past 12 months
in 2004/2005 and 2011, by country 226
Table 7.4 Use of temporary contracts and agency workers in
2004/2005 and 2011, by country 231
Table 7.5 Job insecurity and job demands in 2004/2005 and 2011,
by country 233
Table 8.1 Conformities to existing national models 245
Table 8.2 New perspectives on workplace employment relations in
Britain and France 246
Table A.1 Full achieved samples, WERS 2011 and REPONSE 2011 260
Table A.2 Sample sizes for comparable analysis, WERS and
REPONSE in 2004/2005 and 2011 261
Table A.3 Topic coverage in the WERS and REPONSE 2011
Management Questionnaires 263
Table A.4 Topic coverage in the WERS and REPONSE 2011 Employee
Questionnaires 265
Table A.5 Total population coverage of the WERS and REPONSE
workplace and employee samples in 2011 266
Table A.6 Profile of all employees in Britain and France, compared with
employees in the WERS–REPONSE population, 2011 267
 List of Boxes

Box 3.1 Institutional arrangements for employee representation

in France and Britain 66
Box 4.1 France and Britain: Two different approaches to training 124
Box 4.2 Employment protection regulations in Britain and France 130
Box 6.1 Control variables used in the multivariate analyses of
non-pecuniary job quality and job satisfaction 187

xxv
 1
Managing and Working in Britain
and France: An Introduction
Thomas Amossé, Alex Bryson, John Forth,
and Héloïse Petit

Introduction
What images come to mind when comparing Britain and France? A visi-
tor to each country might think of the culinary delights and wine avail-
able in French bistros, comparing them with the fish, chips, and beer
available in the British pub. A sportsman might compare the Lycra-clad
cyclists of France with Britain’s white-padded cricketers. Employers and
employees, however, are likely to alight upon different aspects of the two
national systems. These might include France’s higher levels of employ-

T. Amossé ()
Centre d’Etudes de l’Emploi, Paris, France
A. Bryson
UCL Institute of Education, London, UK
J. Forth
National Institute of Economic and Social Research, London, UK
H. Petit
University Lille 1, Lille, France

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016 1

T. Amossé et al. (eds.), Comparative Workplace Employment Relations,
DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-57419-0_1
2 T. Amossé et al.

ment protection and more compressed working week, or Britain’s lower

levels of unemployment and comparative industrial peace.
All of these images capture a part of each country which is recognisable
to us but, like so many snapshots of national life that are intended to cap-
ture the ‘essence’ of the particular country in question, they may inadver-
tently obfuscate, causing us to ignore the similarities between countries
and the many nuances within them. After all, a Briton has recently won
‘Le Tour’, and France has a well-established national cricket team.1
Similarly, comparisons based around the economy and employment rela-
tions must accept that extensive bargaining coverage in France coexists
with union membership density that is among the lowest in Europe and
that, despite France having a lower skills base, its productivity is around
30% higher than in the lightly regulated British economy.
So where are the points of commonality and difference in employ-
ment relations between the two countries, and what are their determi-
nants? In making comparisons, macroeceonomic data take us only so
far. What is typically lacking is a comparison of the way in which the
employment relationship is structured and managed within the work-
place. This omission limits our ability to understand differences in eco-
nomic and social outcomes in the two countries—for instance, their
respective experiences of the recent economic crisis—because it abstracts
away from the structures and processes of employment relations at the
point of production.
This book sets out to compare employment relations and organisation
of work from the perspective of the workplace. The novelty of our con-
tribution rests on our use of linked employer–employee data which give
us a unique and detailed insight into the operation of workplaces and
the experiences of their employees. Our data are taken from the British
Workplace Employment Relations Surveys (WERS 2004 and 2011) and
the French Enquête Relations Professionnelles et Négociations d’Entreprises
(REPONSE 2005 and 2011). These comprise national surveys of estab-
lishments and their employees, carried out at very similar times on the
basis of very similar methodologies. They provide us with rich informa-
tion on the two countries’ workplaces—their structural characteristics,

1
See http://francecricket.com/
 1 Managing and Working in Britain and France 3

ownership patterns, and management practices—alongside detailed

information on the experiences and attitudes of their employees. The
surveys have not been explicitly harmonised, but they have been devel-
oped loosely in parallel and contain many comparable data items. They
have the advantage of providing larger samples for Britain and France
than some of the most prominent harmonised cross-national surveys
(such as the European Working Conditions Survey, the European Social
Survey, and the European Company Survey), with the added advantage that
the data from employees and their workplace managers can be linked.
Two broad hypotheses are scrutinised throughout the book. The first is
that an understanding of what happens to economies and to workforces is
incomplete without knowing what happens within and across workplaces.
The underlying contention is that much of the variance in how employees
experience work, how they are treated, and how their jobs are configured
and rewarded depends on where they are employed, not just who they are
and the occupations they have chosen. An appreciation of the role of the
workplace in people’s working lives can greatly enhance our understanding
of how firms and labour markets operate, in a way that is simply not pos-
sible if one relies solely on household surveys or aggregate data. Past studies
have found this to be the case. What is often attributed to the demographic
or human capital traits of individuals turns out to be driven, at least in part,
by the places in which employees work. For example, Bryson and Freeman
(2013) have shown that, in Britain, most of the variance in the problems
that employees report at work is related to the workplace that employs
them, rather than who they are or the job they are doing. Barth et al. (2014)
and Song et al. (2015) show that most of the growth in wage variance in the
USA since the 1970s is accounted for by where you work, not who you are.
Whether these kinds of ‘workplace effects’ operate in the same way, and to
the same degree, in Britain and France is an open question.
The second broad hypothesis is that ‘local’ conditions, including
national institutions, play a key role in shaping how employees work and
think, and how employers recruit, dismiss, and manage employment rela-
tions, but in a more nuanced way that is ordinarily portrayed in the lit-
erature. It seems likely, for instance, that strong adherence to EU social
legislation in France and its own national legal context, in particular the
35-hour working week, will have a substantial effect on comparative work-
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 So I found no difficulty in arranging with Mr. Holley to take a trip
with me, and visit some of my engines in operation, for the purpose
of forming a judgment as to its suitability for the use of his clients.
This he agreed to do as soon as he had finished the report of his trip,
on which he was then engaged. Our inspection took in the engines
running in New York and Brooklyn and vicinity and in New England,
finishing with the engine at the Arlington Mills in Lawrence. They
were all found to be on their best behavior, but Mr. Holley told me
that the engine at Lawrence, which was running there at its intended
speed of 150 revolutions per minute, impressed him more than all
the rest put together; not that it was doing any better, for they all ran
equally well, but solely because it was larger. It made him awake to
the great possibilities of the engine.
On his return Mr. Holley prepared a report on the performance of
the engine, and cordially endorsed it as sure of ultimate general
adoption. But he found capitalists to be absolutely dead. Not even
his great influence could awaken in them the least interest. The time
for the promoter had not yet come. And still my success in winning
Mr. Holley’s support proved to be vital to my subsequent progress.
As a last possible resort I finally thought of Mr. Phillips of Newark.
The firm of Hewes & Phillips had become dissolved by the death of
Mr. Hewes, and so, by purchase of Mr. Hewes’ interest from his
heirs, Mr. Phillips was the sole proprietor of the largest engineering
works in New Jersey. That concern had some time before the death
of Mr. Hewes given up the manufacture of steam-engines, a style
made by them having proved unsuccessful, and confined
themselves to making machine tools. In this line their business was
exceedingly dull, being disastrously affected by the depressed and
stagnant condition of the times.
I found Mr. Phillips ready to listen to me. He said that what he
knew about the engine was favorable, although he had not heard of
it for the last two or three years, but he was willing to consider a
proposition to take up its manufacture. I told him frankly that I had no
proposition of that kind to make. I wished to get the manufacture of
the engine revived, but to retain the business in my own hands, to
carry it on myself in my own name, with the view of gaining for the
engine a reputation that would enable me to command the capital
necessary to establish its manufacture in works that I had long
before planned for that purpose, and in which I could devote myself
to the development and building up of the business; that I hoped to
be able to reach this point in the course of two or three years, when
probably the anticipated financial revival would fill his works with
business in his own line of toolmaking.
He said that my proposal was entirely inadmissible, that he could
not permit any independent business to be carried on in his
establishment, and stated firmly the impossibility of any arrangement
of the kind I suggested, which would be something quite unheard of.
I stood firmly on my own position, but was obliged to leave him
without any sign of yielding on his part. The negotiation was,
however, renewed, exactly how I cannot now recall, but it ended in
my carrying my point. We finally concluded a bargain, in which I held
onto the business, but, of course, had to insure to him pretty much
all the profits. This I did not mind, my object was to obtain a position,
which it will be seen I fully accomplished, but did not know what to
do with it. I was conscious that I could never have made this
arrangement but for the extreme stagnation of the times; but was not
aware of an additional reason which impelled Mr. Phillips to agree to
my terms, when he found he could not do any better. What this
reason was will appear pretty soon.
The arrangement was to go into effect as soon as I got an order.
This was my next job. I learned that Mr. Peters, a manufacturer of
high-grade knit fabrics in Newark, all which, by the way, were sold by
him to importers in New York, was carrying on also a manufacture of
light oilcloths in Newark in temporary quarters, and was building a
large structure for this purpose in East Newark, the building now and
for many years past occupied by the Edison lamp manufactory, and
was in the market for an engine. I called on Mr. Peters, and got from
him the privilege of submitting an estimate for this engine. For this
purpose I went to his then present works, and measured the amount
of power he was using, and found that one of my 8×16 engines
would give him that power with the additional amount he wished to
provide for.
On calling with my estimate early one morning, I found Mr. Peters
ready to bow me out. He told me that he had been informed that the
high-speed engines had proved a failure, and the manufacture of
them had been abandoned three or four years ago. I said to him,
“Mr. Peters, I would like to make you a proposition.” He replied that
he would hear it.
I then said, “Your engineer, Mr. Green, I suppose never saw a
high-speed engine, but he strikes me as a fair-minded, cool-headed
man. I have three engines made by me in Harlem, and which have
been running from four to six years, two in New York and one at the
J. L. Mott Iron Works at Mott Haven. These can all be visited in one
trip. I propose that you send Mr. Green to see them in operation, and
talk with the engineers and owners and learn all about them, and
that you suspend your decision until you get his report.” “That is a
fair offer,” said he. “I will send him to-day.” I called again the next
day, and found Mr. Peters ready to throw the order into my hands.
Mr. Green told me afterwards what his impressions were. In the most
cool manner, entirely free from any excitement, he said: “My only
wonder is that everybody does not use this engine and that all
builders don’t make it. I got the same report everywhere. Would not
have anything else. Costs less money, occupies less space, burns
less coal, needs less attention, never cost a cent for repairs, never
anything the matter, never varies its speed.”
And so I began business in Mr. Phillips’ shop, where I continued
for four years, the most delightful period in my active life. I had Mr.
Goodfellow in his old place as my foreman, and three or four of my
best men back again at the work they loved. Everything went
smoothly and harmoniously, and the business grew steadily until the
orders thrust upon me became larger than I could have filled if I had
had the whole works to myself. In re-introducing the engine to the
public, I determined to change its name. I had been asked
occasionally what I had to do with the Allen engine. It struck me that
I had a good deal to do with it. Starting from Mr. Allen’s single
eccentric link motion, and four-opening equilibrium valve and my
own governor, I had, with the help which I have been happy to
acknowledge, created the high-speed engine, had solved every
problem, theoretical and practical, which it involved, and designed
every part of it. So I felt it to be proper that it should thereafter be
known as the Porter-Allen engine.
 The following incident illustrates the ease with which everything
down to the smallest detail may unconsciously be prepared to insure
a disaster at some time.
Mr. Peters’ engine-room was a long, narrow room on one side of
the boiler-room, from which was the only entrance to it directly
opposite the guide-bars of the engine. The door opened inward, and
the latch was not very secure. They burned soft coal, which was
wheeled in on an elevated plank and dumped into a heap in front of
the furnace.
One day, about a year after the engine was put in, there was a
great wind blowing. A gust of unusual force blew the engine-room
door open at the instant when a barrowful of coal was being
dumped, and carried a cloud of its dust over the guide-bars. The
engine was soon brought to a standstill. All the faces of cross-head
and guide-bars were deeply scored. It was found, however, that
when these were cleaned up and scraped over to remove all
projections that they ran as well as ever, the grooves proving good
oil distributors, but they were not so pretty to look at.
One day, two or three weeks after we commenced work on this
engine, Mr. Phillips’ bookkeeper came to me and said: “Mr. Peters’
engine is contracted to be running on the first of May, is it not?”
“Yes.” “Do you think it will be ready?” I replied that the work was in a
good state of forwardness, and I thought most likely it would be
running before that time. I should say that was a size for which I had
made the revised drawings already, and the old cylinder pattern had
been readily altered to the new style. “Well,” said he, “Mr. Phillips is a
little short to-day, and he would be much obliged if you would give
him your note for a thousand dollars to come due, say, the fifteenth
of May.” So I gave him the note, the engine was ready on time,
accepted and paid for, and the note met at maturity.
This was the beginning of a uniform process, which continued for
four years. It was disclosed that Mr. Phillips’ financial position was
the same as my own, neither of us had a cent of money. The way we
managed was this. I always afterwards required payments in
instalments, one quarter with the order, one quarter when the engine
was ready for shipment, and the balance when running satisfactorily.
Thus with my notes we got along famously. My orders were always
from first-class parties, engines always ready on time, always gave
satisfaction, and promptly paid for. I had many thousands in notes
out all the time, and never had to renew a note. Mr. James Moore of
Philadelphia, the celebrated builder of rolling mill machinery, once
long after remarked to me, “I keep my bank account in the shop.” It
occurred to me that I had always done the same thing.
Directly after we got running I received a letter from William R.
Jones, superintendent of the Edgar Thompson Steel Company,
running a rail mill recently started at Braddocks by Carnegie
Brothers, saying that they were in need of an engine to drive a
circular saw at a very high rate of speed to cut off steel rails cold.
They had been recommended by Mr. Holley to get one of mine, and
if I could furnish a suitable engine immediately he would order it.
Fortunately I could. While I was building engines in Harlem, the city
of Washington, D. C., went into the system of wooden pavements,
and the contractor obtained an engine from me for sawing up the
blocks. About the very time I received Mr. Jones’ letter I had learned
that the wooden pavement system was being abandoned in
Washington for asphalt and the sawing-mill was closed. I at once
wrote to the contractor making him an offer for the engine. I received
by return mail a reply accepting my offer, and adding most
complimentary words concerning the engine. These I remember
closed by saying that his admiration of it was such that if he were
able he would put the engine in a glass case and keep it there as
long as he lived.
The engine proved just right for Mr. Jones’ use. I went myself to
Braddocks to see it started. All were much interested in the governor
action, I as much as any one, for I had never before seen this
particular application of it. In sawing through the head and web and
bottom flange of the rail, the width of section being cut varied
continually, and the gentle rising and falling of the counterpoise,
adjusting the power to the resistance, while the engine kept, so far
as the eye could detect, a uniform motion, had about it a continual
fascination. The success of this engine brought me several orders
for governors, the most important of which was one from Mr. Jones
himself for governors and throttle valves for his blooming mill and
rail-mill engines. I got up for him balanced piston valves which
operated perfectly. In iron valves and seats of this character it had
been found, where the steam contained primed water, that their
edges wore rounded, and their action in regulating the motion
became less and less satisfactory. I knew that these boilers primed
badly, and avoided this defect by setting brass rings in the edges.
The following illustrations show this regulating valve which I
designed and made in two sizes.

Mr. Porter’s Regulating Valve.

The brass liner for the lower seat was passed through the upper
seat by being made thinner than the upper liner. Those for the valve
were made ¹⁄₈ inch too long, and guttered in the lower edge. They
were then driven down by a set and sledge on an anvil. By going
around them three times the lower edges were spread out to fill the
chamfer, and the flanges brought down to their seats. Those for the
lower valve were put in in halves.
William R. Jones
 CHAPTER XXIII

Experience as Member of the Board of Judges At the Philadelphia Centennial

Exhibition.

ne day in April I was surprised to receive by mail a

commission as a member of the Board of Judges in
Group Twenty of the Philadelphia International
Exhibition. I was at a loss to know how I got it, but
learned afterwards that I had been appointed on the
recommendation of Mr. Holley, who was consulted by
the commissioners about the judges in several groups. The
exhibition was opened on May 1, but the judges were not to
assemble until the 24th, and on that day we had quite a ceremony in
the judges’ hall. The American judges were seated at one side of the
hall and rose to receive the foreign judges who filed in from some
place where they had been corralled, while a fine band played the
national airs of all nations that had any airs. After a time spent in
welcoming and responsive addresses, we were marched to a large
café and given luncheon, after which the different groups were
organized. There I had the pleasure of first meeting Mr. James
Moore, also Professor Reuleaux of Berlin and Colonel Petroff of St.
Petersburg; and Emil Brugsch the interesting Egyptian
commissioner, also serving as a judge in our group. I observed that
these foreigners used the English language more accurately than I
did. We organized by the election as president of Horatio Allen,
formerly president of the Novelty Iron Works (then extinct), he being
the oldest and the biggest man among us. Under Mr. Allen’s
administration we had a fine illustration of how not to do anything—of
endless preparation and never getting to work. He had an
interminable series of subjects for discussion and was accustomed
to say: “These questions must be all settled before we can enter
upon the discharge of our duties, gentlemen.” This had the effect
upon our foreign judges that they absented themselves from our
meetings. I remember Mr. Moore saying to me: “Porter, if you and I
had had this work to do we would have had it half done by this time.”
Directly after that Mr. Moore resigned, ostensibly pleading want of
time to attend to it, but really disgusted at the waste of time. Our
work was in a state of chaos. The field was very extensive, as it
embraced all exhibits pertaining to steam and water except
locomotives. One morning I came to the meeting with a copy of the
catalogue on which I had divided the exhibits into three classes,
lettered A, B, and C: class A embraced steam-engines and their
accessories, class B boilers and their accessories and class C
pumps and their accessories; I had prefixed these letters to the
names of all our exhibits according to their class. At this meeting, at
which I had procured the attendance of the foreign judges, this
classification was unanimously adopted, and the judges formed
themselves into these classes accordingly. Our work was then
undertaken in earnest; it was found to be really too extensive to be
accomplished otherwise.
Mr. Charles E. Emery was appointed a judge to fill the vacant
place made by Mr. Moore’s resignation, and he proved most efficient.
As is well known, medals were not awarded, but brief written reports
were made on those exhibits which were deemed most deserving;
these reports were signed by all the judges.
 Professor Francis Reuleaux

The firm of E. P. Allis & Co. of Milwaukee, exhibited a sawmill. This

exhibit consisted of two large circular saws, each driven by a
horizontal engine. The two engines were united by a common shaft
on the ends of which the cranks were set at right angles with each
other. The center lines of these engines were nearly 20 feet apart;
the shaft carried two belt drums 8 or 10 feet in diameter, one of them
near to the bed of each engine; at the middle of the shaft was a fly-
wheel about 16 feet in diameter. The rim of this fly-wheel was in
eight or ten segments, with an arm attached to the middle of each
segment; the segments were bolted together and the arms were
bolted to a hub on the shaft. The saws were set behind the cylinders,
and the belts were carried from the drums on the shaft past the
cylinders to smaller drums on the saw arbors. On starting these
engines the two bearings of the main shaft heated so badly that the
engines had to be stopped. The gentleman in charge of the exhibit
applied to me for advice. I told him that although his shaft was large
it was long, and the weight of the fly-wheel bent it so much that the
two journals ran on the inner edges of their bottom boxes, which
caused the heating. I told him he did not need the fly-wheel at all; the
cranks being quartering, the momentum of the belt-drums was amply
sufficient to maintain uniform motion, and I advised him to take off
the fly-wheel. This he did at once, leaving only the hub on the shaft;
the engines then ran with cold bearings and uniform motion
throughout the exhibition. They had made a cut-off gear for these
engines, but it was found not to suit the purpose and was taken off.
This firm then did a great stroke of business: they came to the
sensible conclusion that they could do a great deal better than to
attempt to work out a new system of engineering for themselves, so
they offered to Mr. Edwin Reynolds, the manager of Mr. Corliss’
works, and to his head draftsman, inducements sufficient for them to
leave Mr. Corliss’ employment and take the same positions in the
Allis works at Milwaukee for the manufacture of the Corliss engine
there. With the magnificent result of this action the engineering world
is familiar.
 We had all sorts of queer experiences. One day I was demanded
by Mr. Jerome Wheelock to tell him why the engine exhibited by him
was not a perfect engine. I glanced over the long slender bed, a
copy of the Corliss bed without its rigidity, and declined to answer his
question. Mr. Emery was more compliant; on receiving the same
demand, he kindly pointed out to Mr. Wheelock one respect in which
his engine could hardly be considered perfect; the steam was
exhausted into a large chamber embracing the lower half of the
cylinder from end to end. This comparatively cold bath produced the
condensation of a large quantity of the entering steam. From the
middle of this chamber a pipe took away the exhaust from the
opposite ends of the cylinder alternately. Mr. Wheelock admitted the
defect, and said in future he would avoid it, so, as I learned, having
two exhaust pipes instead of one, he gave to each pipe one half the
area of the single one.
I had the pleasure of renewing my acquaintance with Professor
Sweet, who was superintending the exhibit of the mechanical work of
his boys at Cornell; this was very creditable and included quite a
show of surface plates.
The Corliss engine in this exhibition was far the most imposing,
and to the multitude the most attractive single exhibit ever shown
anywhere. It consisted of two distinct engines, each having a
cylinder 40 inches in diameter, with 10 feet stroke of piston, the
motion of which was transmitted through cast-iron walking beams to
cranks set at right angles with each other on the opposite ends of a
common shaft. This shaft made 36 revolutions per minute and
carried a gear-wheel 30 feet in diameter; this wheel engaged with a
pinion 10 feet in diameter on the line of shaft under the floor, giving
to this shaft a speed of 108 revolutions per minute.
One day I said to Professor Sweet: “Do you know, Professor, that
an engine with a single cylinder of the same bore as these and 5 feet
stroke directly connected with a line shaft and making 150
revolutions per minute, with a fly-wheel 10 or 12 feet in diameter,
would exert more power than is afforded by this monster and would
run with far greater economy, because the internal surfaces to be
heated by the condensation of the entering steam would be one
piston instead of two, two heads instead of four, and 5 feet length of
exposed cylinder instead of 20 feet?” He replied: “That is all very
true, but how would you get the steam in and out of the cylinder
properly with a piston travel of 1500 feet per minute?” I was not
prepared to answer that question on the instant, but I afterwards
found no difficulty about it.
The accompanying figures illustrate this engine and my high-
speed equivalent drawn to the same scale; it will be seen that the
small engine occupies about one tenth of the floor space needed for
the large one, and would cost less than ten per cent. of the money. It
would also have a more nearly uniform motion, the impulses
received by the crank being 300 per minute, against only 144 per
minute received by both cranks of the large engine, besides which in
the latter the full force of the steam is exerted at the commencement
of each stroke and falls to nothing at the end, while in the smaller
engine, by the inertia of the reciprocating parts, the forces exerted at
the opposite ends of the stroke would be practically equalized. The
reader will doubtless inquire, as Mr. Green did why, with these
enormous advantages, does not everybody use the high-speed
engines and every builder make them?
 The Corliss Engine Exhibited at the Centennial Exhibition.

Porter-Allen Engine Equal in Power to the Exhibited Corliss Engine.

At this exhibition the Bell telephone was first shown to a select

company, among which were President Grant and Dom Pedro, the
last emperor of Brazil. This exhibition was given on Sunday, that
being the only day when silence could be had. Human speech, both
in talking and singing, was transmitted through the whole length of
the main building, about 1800 feet; it has since been transmitted
somewhat further.
The exhibitors of hand pumps all talked about the ease with which
their own pumps could be worked; one man touched bottom in this
respect. He had set his pump so that the spout was nearly on a level
with the surface of the pool from which it drew its water; he boldly
claimed that his pumps required no power at all. I was invited, as I
suppose multitudes were, to take hold of the handle and see for
myself that his claim was true. I never heard of but one man who I
think would be satisfied with this demonstration; that was the
engineering editor of the New York Tribune. Shortly before this he
had published an account of a wonderful pump invented by a Mr.
George, which he concluded by saying that the superiority of Mr.
George’s pump lay in the fact that at each stroke not the whole
column of water had to be lifted, but only that which was to be
discharged. We had a waterfall maintained by a centrifugal pump,
which received its water on one side only; the maker evidently
knowing nothing about the method of balancing these pumps by
admitting the water equally on the opposite sides.
The boiler-makers abounded. My old acquaintance, the Harrison
boiler, turned up. Mr. Allen urged a favorable award to Mr. Harrison
because of the motives of humanity by which he knew Mr. Harrison
was actuated in designing that boiler. A Mr. Pierce invited all the
judges to visit his boiler and hear him explain it. He informed us that
this boiler had been the subject of three scientific tests by Professor
Thurston, but he did not tell us the results of those tests.
As we were coming away Professor Reuleaux said to me: “That is
foolishness, isn’t it?”
An inventor named Smith came several times to our judges’ room
to urge upon us the merits of his boiler. He had two on exhibition,
one in use in the boiler-house and the other in Machinery Hall; these
were quite different from each other. One day not long after the close
of the exhibition I received a note from a stranger requesting me to
call upon him at the Astor House. I thought, “This man doubtless
wants an engine, but his time is too precious to come out to
Newark,” so at the hour appointed I was there. When I entered the
room the first object I saw was a sectional model of this Smith boiler,
and I found that the gentleman wanted to know our reasons for
overlooking that boiler. I replied to him that I had a question to which
I would like an answer at his earliest convenience; we observed that
the two boilers exhibited by Mr. Smith were quite different from each
other, and I saw that this model differed in essential details from both
of them, and I would like to know which one he wished us to approve
of and bade him good afternoon.
One day afterwards I happened to be in Mr. Holley’s office in New
York when a man came in with a drawing of a boiler which he wished
Mr. Holley to recommend. Mr. Holley turned him over to me, and he
explained to me that the great novel feature of his boiler was that the
feed-water was admitted by spraying it into the steam space, thus
avoiding the cooling of any part of the boiler by its admission at one
point; so I found one freak boiler that was not at the exhibition.
We had a fine exhibit of steam fire-engines. I think every maker in
this country was represented, and we had a trial of these engines
lasting three or four days. The committee desired to make a
thorough comparative test of their performance, but the man (a
lieutenant in the navy) appointed to keep the record put down so few
items that we found we had no record at all. We could only guess
how he came to do this.
An exhibitor from Canada brought an engine that presented a very
fine appearance; it was made up of a collection of what he believed
to be the best features of every steam-engine made in the United
States. The experts looked his machine over and saw where he had
got every one of them, but his different appropriations did not work
well together; his engine broke down every day and he worked all
night to be ready for the next day’s trial. It afforded a good
commentary on the narrow-minded laws of Canada, which forbade a
citizen of the United States from taking out a patent there.
The show of steam-engines was not large, and the indicator was
not applied to any engines, so I had no use for the indicators I had
imported from England. If I remember rightly, we had only two
engines from abroad, one of these sent by the Government of Brazil.
This was what was called a “table” engine, in which the cylinder
stands on a table in a vertical position and two connecting-rods
extend down from the cross-head and connect with the crank under
the table. It was copied from a Scotch elementary drawing-book from
which I learned mechanical drawing. One of these engines had been
made by Mr. Hoe to drive the press of the New York Daily Times
when that paper was started in 1851 or 1852. The other foreign
engine was made by a Brussels manufacturer with the assistance of
the Belgian Government. It had an American cut-off which was used
by Mr. Delamater on his engines, and it had the eccentric between
the main bearing and the crank, giving to the latter therefore three or
four inches of unnecessary overhang; it had my condenser, which I
learned was then coming into considerable use on the Continent.
Col. Alexis Petroff
 The only American engines I now recall besides the Corliss were
the Buckeye and the Brown engines, and our awards to these
engines did not do them any harm; the Corliss engines were not
within our jurisdiction and we were not permitted to say anything
about them; Mr. Corliss was not a competitor but a patron of the
exhibition.
Mr. Frederick E. Sickels made an extensive exhibit of his various
inventions, the models of which had been loaned to him for that
purpose by the Patent Office. Only two of these inventions came
within our province: the first was what is known as the celebrated trip
cut-off, patented by him in the year 1842; the latter an arrangement
patented in 1848. The former invention was an improvement on the
Stevens cut-off, already in general use in steamboats on our Eastern
waters. The Stevens invention was applied to equilibrium valves,
rising and falling in a direction vertical to their seats. It enlarged the
opening movement of the valve in a degree increasing as the speed
of the piston increased, by means of the device known as the wiper
cam; but the closing motion of the valve, being the reverse of the
opening movement, grew slower and slower, until the valve was
gently brought to its seat. It was found that during the closing of the
port a great deal of steam blew into the cylinder through the
contracting openings, with very little addition to the useful effect. Mr.
Sickels conceived the idea of liberating the valve just before the
opening movement was completed and letting it fall instantly to its
seat, which would effect a sharp cut-off and a great economy in the
consumption of steam. This action involved the difficulty that the
valves would strike their seats with a violent blow, which would soon
destroy both. This difficulty Mr. Sickels met by the invention of the
dash-pot. This apparatus performed two functions: when its piston
was lifted above the water it left a vacuum under it, so the pressure
of the atmosphere on this piston was added to the weight of the
valve and the pressure of the steam on it to accelerate its fall. This
was arrested by the piston striking the surface of the water just in
time to prevent the valve from striking its seat, but not soon enough
to prevent the complete closure of the port. This nice point was
determined by the ear. The engineer first let water out of the dash-
pot gradually, until he heard the valve strike its seat faintly; then he